Yes, clearly then can land in a different place. But this relies on 1) initially reaching an altitude which means no line of sight for spectators 2) lands in a place where no one sees the "massive freaking rocket" come down again 3) no one except SpaceX was tracking it on radar 4) it didn't cross any no-fly zones where presumably radar operators would have become aware 5) technologically being advanced enough to build a rocket which can take off at high velocity and land, but not so advanced as it can't reach "space".

You're inferring that my comments relate to incompetence but, far from it, what I'm saying is that to fake it seems immensely complex based on the comments above.

I'm trying to have a discussion and you're just flippantly dismissing my comments without consideration.

Don't assume it's me being obtuse. When you believe something you tend not to examine arguments against an alternative too closely. 1's trivial, rockets are pretty well known for expelling a massive obscuring among of smoke, far more than any typical plane, so going out of view isn't hard. Ditto for 2, especially if they choose sea. For 3/4, radar's known to not be perfect, outside of wartime unexpected blips are just as likely to be flocks of birds, for starters. Add into that the fact Kennedy Space Center, for one example, is adjacent to a nature preserve and it's hard not to ask a question. Rocket goes off, nearby birds react. For 5, reaching space is not a matter of being advanced, it's physically impossible. I've no doubt they tried, they just found that it literally cannot be done. The forces at altitude would tear any rocket apart. Really it's not much more than careful timing and routing.

Apologies for small aside, but could you direct me to the best place (with specifics if possible) to learn why you believe space flight is physically impossible, and what forces you are referring to? I understand you are likely referring to your DE stuff, but a more direct location (subforum or similar) would be appreciated.

Apologies for small aside, but could you direct me to the best place (with specifics if possible) to learn why you believe space flight is physically impossible, and what forces you are referring to? I understand you are likely referring to your DE stuff, but a more direct location (subforum or similar) would be appreciated.

As with any scientific model it's hard to give a good explanation without giivng all the underpinning theory first. That's linked below (Dual Earth Overview, stickied in every section, with an FAQ in Dual Earth Model). The basic gist's that the rate at which what you call gravity decreases is discontinuous, and the discontinuities get increasingly intense with altitude, as observed with the rate of decrease. At high altitude, it's physically equivalent to one half of the rocket being grabbed and yanked one way, when half is being yanked the other. It's the same force that, say, tears apart a meteot ot cause a meteor shower.

My DE model explained here. Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

Don't assume it's me being obtuse. When you believe something you tend not to examine arguments against an alternative too closely.

Have a think about that for a minute...

Quote

rockets are pretty well known for expelling a massive obscuring among of smoke, far more than any typical plane, so going out of view isn't hard

You're seriously claiming that the fact that rockets leave behind a very obvious vapour trail which persists and shows you the path they too makes it EASIER for them to go out of view?

Quote

reaching space is not a matter of being advanced, it's physically impossible...The forces at altitude would tear any rocket apart

You can't just claim this sort of stuff. Where is your evidence for that? What is your expertise in all this to claim this so definitively. Elsewhere in the thread your response to expert geologists comments on the difference between moon rock and earth rock is "They're dry and had holes in. Obviously no possible way to fake that"Do you have the first understanding of geology? I mean, I don't. But it would be bizarre of me to think I knew better than geologists who have presumably spent decades studying this sort of thing.

"This is literally just a few people talking about it for a brief time every day on their spare time. That’s the flat earth movement" - Tom Bishop

Don't assume it's me being obtuse. When you believe something you tend not to examine arguments against an alternative too closely. 1's trivial, rockets are pretty well known for expelling a massive obscuring among of smoke, far more than any typical plane, so going out of view isn't hard.

They only smoke at ground level. Watch any recent rocket launch, and there's very little in terms of exhaust smoke once it's away from the spray/water pit at the launchpad. Most of the smoke is actually steam.

The video of the shuttle is different due to the solid fuel boosters. They leave more of a trail

Ditto for 2, especially if they choose sea.

Again, you're falling back on the technique of implying they COULD have done something, rather than actually showing that they have.

For 5, reaching space is not a matter of being advanced, it's physically impossible.

What, PHYSICALLY, prevents it?

I've no doubt they tried, they just found that it literally cannot be done. The forces at altitude would tear any rocket apart.

Yet you have no actual footage of any such rocket being "torn apart" ....

Why do you think the forces AT ALTITUDE are worse than those at ground level?

============================================================Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

You're seriously claiming that the fact that rockets leave behind a very obvious vapour trail which persists and shows you the path they too makes it EASIER for them to go out of view?

Well, yes. Look at what Tumeni said.

Quote

Quote

reaching space is not a matter of being advanced, it's physically impossible...The forces at altitude would tear any rocket apart

You can't just claim this sort of stuff. Where is your evidence for that? What is your expertise in all this to claim this so definitively. Elsewhere in the thread your response to expert geologists comments on the difference between moon rock and earth rock is "They're dry and had holes in. Obviously no possible way to fake that"Do you have the first understanding of geology? I mean, I don't. But it would be bizarre of me to think I knew better than geologists who have presumably spent decades studying this sort of thing.

My model, I'm not going into it on a whim, see sig. Except geologists don't seek to prove that rocks came from the moon, they seek to analyse it under the assumption that it was. That's a huge flaw in thinking a lot of REers display, misapplying science.

Don't assume it's me being obtuse. When you believe something you tend not to examine arguments against an alternative too closely. 1's trivial, rockets are pretty well known for expelling a massive obscuring among of smoke, far more than any typical plane, so going out of view isn't hard.

They only smoke at ground level. Watch any recent rocket launch, and there's very little in terms of exhaust smoke once it's away from the spray/water pit at the launchpad. Most of the smoke is actually steam.

The video of the shuttle is different due to the solid fuel boosters. They leave more of a trail

Ditto for 2, especially if they choose sea.

Again, you're falling back on the technique of implying they COULD have done something, rather than actually showing that they have.

For 5, reaching space is not a matter of being advanced, it's physically impossible.

What, PHYSICALLY, prevents it?

I've no doubt they tried, they just found that it literally cannot be done. The forces at altitude would tear any rocket apart.

Yet you have no actual footage of any such rocket being "torn apart" ....

Why do you think the forces AT ALTITUDE are worse than those at ground level?

Jesus christ are you ever going to read my response to your constant harping on about ;'You're only showing it could have happened!' I've pointed it out to you three bloody times by this point and you always vanish right after and never respond. I have answered you, both in the post you are quoting and before, and I am sick to death of wasting time when all you ever do is ignore me.

My DE model explained here. Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

As with any scientific model it's hard to give a good explanation without giivng all the underpinning theory first. That's linked below (Dual Earth Overview, stickied in every section, with an FAQ in Dual Earth Model). The basic gist's that the rate at which what you call gravity decreases is discontinuous, and the discontinuities get increasingly intense with altitude, as observed with the rate of decrease. At high altitude, it's physically equivalent to one half of the rocket being grabbed and yanked one way, when half is being yanked the other. It's the same force that, say, tears apart a meteot ot cause a meteor shower.

Have you actually measured any of these forces to which you refer?

============================================================Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

As with any scientific model it's hard to give a good explanation without giivng all the underpinning theory first. That's linked below (Dual Earth Overview, stickied in every section, with an FAQ in Dual Earth Model). The basic gist's that the rate at which what you call gravity decreases is discontinuous, and the discontinuities get increasingly intense with altitude, as observed with the rate of decrease. At high altitude, it's physically equivalent to one half of the rocket being grabbed and yanked one way, when half is being yanked the other. It's the same force that, say, tears apart a meteot ot cause a meteor shower.

Have you actually measured any of these forces to which you refer?

Yes.

My DE model explained here. Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

Its OK, that people don't think what you think. Its very normal. Without it we couldn't have democracy. Everyone would want to marry the exact same woman. We'd all drive the exact same car, wear the same clothes and decide to use the exact same coffee shop at the exact same time in the exact same city that we all decided was the best place to live. I don't care that you think the earth is round. And I'm not going to insist you change your mind about it.

Those are all terrible examples. Or rather, they're very good examples of things which are subjective. So yes, there will be different opinions about these things.But the shape of the earth is not subjective. It is what it is. There should not be different opinions about these things. Not all opinions are equally valid.

To answer the original question, I guess for me I'd have to see some really compelling evidence for a flat earth, that the whole space industry is bogus. And some explanation as to how the airline industry has been getting us all round the "disc" while thinking it's a globe. A flat earth map that actually works in terms of distances between places and the relationship between them would be nice too.

A map that works. Bingo. That is the only proof I would need to consider the possibility of a flat earth. It seems pretty simple given the amount of data available. I have tried and failed.

============================================================Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

You want me to provide citations for the fact that there are forces which push down, that they diminish with respect to altitude, and that they impart a slight rotational force (in different directions depending on what side of the equator you're on)? Seriously?They're all I'm talking about.

My DE model explained here. Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

You want me to provide citations for the fact that there are forces which push down, that they diminish with respect to altitude, and that they impart a slight rotational force (in different directions depending on what side of the equator you're on)? Seriously?They're all I'm talking about.

So you're not going to tell us which forces you measured, then? Nor when you measured them, where you measured them, nor where your results were documented or published?

============================================================Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

Just because they told you they went into space isn't evidence that they did it.

Correct!

We have billions of public funds spent in something. It is the most normal to suspect that something. If you look at the construction companies, they fight in any way possible to get the funds...... Because only 20% of that money will go for bricks, concrete, telescopes, rocket fuel, copper for the Hadron collider..... Lying about space and subatomic world, things that can not be seen by the public, is the simplest way to steal billions.

You want me to provide citations for the fact that there are forces which push down, that they diminish with respect to altitude, and that they impart a slight rotational force (in different directions depending on what side of the equator you're on)? Seriously?They're all I'm talking about.

So you're not going to tell us which forces you measured, then? Nor when you measured them, where you measured them, nor where your results were documented or published?

You're just going to completely ignore every word I said then? Got it. Don't know why I ever expect anything different from you.

My DE model explained here. Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

You want me to provide citations for the fact that there are forces which push down, that they diminish with respect to altitude, and that they impart a slight rotational force (in different directions depending on what side of the equator you're on)? Seriously?They're all I'm talking about.

So you're not going to tell us which forces you measured, then? Nor when you measured them, where you measured them, nor where your results were documented or published?

You're just going to completely ignore every word I said then? Got it. Don't know why I ever expect anything different from you.

You said "Yes" when I asked if you had measured them (see quote above). I'm specifically asking what tests you did, and what your results were, OF THESE TESTS. How is that ignoring what you said? I don't want citations of the existence of such forces, I want to know what YOU did to test them, since you said you had actually done this.

Besides which, isn't posting simply to complain about someone else's style of posting, or lack of response, deemed to be "Low-content posting in the upper fora" or somesuch?

« Last Edit: July 25, 2018, 07:23:34 AM by Tumeni »

============================================================Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

You said "Yes" when I asked if you had measured them (see quote above). I'm specifically asking what tests you did, and what your results were, OF THESE TESTS. How is that ignoring what you said? I don't want citations of the existence of such forces, I want to know what YOU did to test them, since you said you had actually done this.

Besides which, isn't posting simply to complain about someone else's style of posting, or lack of response, deemed to be "Low-content posting in the upper fora" or somesuch?

The fact you totally ignored my response is not a problem with your 'style,' it is an problem with your utter lack of logic. What is the point in you asking questions when you don't give a damn about the answers, you just want to waste time and score cheap victories over semantics and non-entities?

I don't particularly feel like digging up my old tests when you already agree that the forces I verified exist. You are blatantly just wasting my time.

My DE model explained here. Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

You said "Yes" when I asked if you had measured them (see quote above). I'm specifically asking what tests you did, and what your results were, OF THESE TESTS. How is that ignoring what you said? I don't want citations of the existence of such forces, I want to know what YOU did to test them, since you said you had actually done this.

Besides which, isn't posting simply to complain about someone else's style of posting, or lack of response, deemed to be "Low-content posting in the upper fora" or somesuch?

The fact you totally ignored my response is not a problem with your 'style,' it is an problem with your utter lack of logic. What is the point in you asking questions when you don't give a damn about the answers, you just want to waste time and score cheap victories over semantics and non-entities?

I don't particularly feel like digging up my old tests when you already agree that the forces I verified exist. You are blatantly just wasting my time.

If you're talking about a downward force which varies with altitude then yes, we all agree that exists. We being "round earthers". It's called gravity.But your assertion is that the difference in force increases with altitude to the point that it would break up a rocket to which the response is...no it wouldn't.That is what you're being asked to show your tests of.It wouldn't cause rockets to break up because the formula for the force of gravity between two objects is F = G M1 M2 / r2

Where G is the gravitational constant. M1 and M2 are the masses of the two objects and r is the distance between their centres of gravity.Now, the centre of gravity of the earth is, more or less, in the middle of the earth and the radius of the earth is 6371km.So while yes, the force is less as you ascend because 'r' increases, it only increases a bit relative to the size of the earth. Even at 100km above the surface the force would be about 97% of that at the surface - it's a myth that there is no gravity in space, the astronauts in the ISS are weightless because the forces (weight is a force) balance out, they are effectively in perpetual freefall.

So, while yes, there is a downward force and yes that force does vary with altitude the difference in forces between the top and bottom of a rocket at any altitude are not going to noticeable, much less pull the thing apart. If you have tests and measurements which show different then let's see them.And no, this is not the same force which causes meteors to break up, that's caused by them slamming into the atmosphere. That is also why spacecraft like the space shuttle have to have heat shields to stop them breaking up on re-entry, when the heat shield was damaged it did break up on re-entry

« Last Edit: July 25, 2018, 12:34:47 PM by AllAroundTheWorld »

"This is literally just a few people talking about it for a brief time every day on their spare time. That’s the flat earth movement" - Tom Bishop

You said "Yes" when I asked if you had measured them (see quote above). I'm specifically asking what tests you did, and what your results were, OF THESE TESTS. How is that ignoring what you said? I don't want citations of the existence of such forces, I want to know what YOU did to test them, since you said you had actually done this.

Besides which, isn't posting simply to complain about someone else's style of posting, or lack of response, deemed to be "Low-content posting in the upper fora" or somesuch?

The fact you totally ignored my response is not a problem with your 'style,' it is an problem with your utter lack of logic. What is the point in you asking questions when you don't give a damn about the answers, you just want to waste time and score cheap victories over semantics and non-entities?

I don't particularly feel like digging up my old tests when you already agree that the forces I verified exist. You are blatantly just wasting my time.

Just answer the question. You can't spare a couple of lines to point us at your work? Really?

If you spent the same time answering my questions as you did complaining about how I question you, we might actually get some information out of you.

============================================================Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

If you're talking about a downward force which varies with altitude then yes, we all agree that exists. We being "round earthers". It's called gravity.But your assertion is that the difference in force increases with altitude to the point that it would break up a rocket to which the response is...no it wouldn't.That is what you're being asked to show your tests of.

Except not, it wasn't. If he'd asked me for evidence of that I'd have been happy to do so, but he didn't, he asked if I'd tested to see if the forces I referred to exist. They do. Now he's just whinging that I'm not going to waste my time justifying the existence of observations he already accepts. The difference is you explain them as an attraction of mass, while I do not. As such I do not need to follow the calculations derived from that, I need to follow common sense and logic independently. The rotational force intensifies with altitude, meteors that come down break up at that same location... Observation matters more than theory, theory is how we try to explain them but any observation oculd be explained by other theories. I've no doubt that in the centuries it's had RET's come up with excuses, but I don't care, I am not a round earther and my model should not be measured by how close or far it is from RET, but rather how close or far it is from reality.

My DE model explained here. Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

.... he didn't, he asked if I'd tested to see if the forces I referred to exist. They do. Now he's just whinging that I'm not going to waste my time justifying the existence of observations he already accepts.

Assuming you're referring to me, then stop twisting my words.

You referred to "The basic gist is that the rate at which what you call gravity decreases is discontinuous, and the discontinuities get increasingly intense with altitude, as observed with the rate of decrease. At high altitude, it's physically equivalent to one half of the rocket being grabbed and yanked one way, when half is being yanked the other. It's the same force that, say, tears apart a meteor or causes a meteor shower"

I asked if you had "actually measured any of these forces to which you refer?" I did not "ask if you'd tested to see if the forces your referred to exist". There's a difference.

You said "Yes" (i.e. that you HAD measured them)

So I asked what tests you had actually performed to measure them, since you said you had.

It's simple. You said you had done some measurements on these forces. What did you do?

I'm not arguing the toss over whether or not these forces exist or not. You said you had measured them. Tell us what you measured, how you measured it, when you did so, and where your results are.

============================================================Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"